Problem_Formulation

Problem Formulation and Identification MGT/350 Introduction This paper is based on four different thinking styles. The thinking styles which will be discussed are objective, intuitive, collaborative and autocratic how each are and have a positive and negative effect on the company and certain problems that occur within companies. Problem Formulation and Identification In most businesses the company has a personality that comes from the organization’s past and present internal structure. The internal structure consists of core values, problem solving and policies. Each person who has worked for the business together make the character of the business and may have affected decision making making and policies. Each employees’ personality for better or for worse has complemented the business in some way . These characteristics are what a business bases their overall organizational structure on. Within every business, there are many different personalities and different races and cultures. Many businesses look for potential employees who have certain thinking styles that will fit their organization and allow the person to perform to the best of their ability. This doesn’t mean all employees will think and act the same. It means there will be employees with like thinking and decision making styles       Objective Thinking The objective thinker is very focused in what they believe in and what they are trying to achieve. The objective thinker tends to be confident and positive and does not like to fail. When a business has a problem frustration and confusion can impact productivity in a negative way, but an objective thinker is usually calm, in control of their emotions and has the ability to make a positive impact on the situation. The ability to examine and facts and act quickly is another plus of an objective thinker. Objective thinkers may appear to be over confident and stubborn and may cause conflicts in a business environment but are usually team players and have the good of the business first in the decision making process. Intuitive Thinking    Intuitive thinkers tend to be intellectual, knowledgeable in their fields, and theoretical. Intuitive Thinkers like to solve problems on their own and be seen as intellectual. Intuitive thinkers will take on complex problems, look at future consequences are patient. The Intuitive Thinker is organized and are very structured within their job and lives.  Within a business they like to work independently and as a manager tends to be a micro-manager. The Intuitive Thinker will argue details and are not afraid to tackle a problem head-on and work at it constantly until the issue is resolved. Autocratic Thinking When a business acts on a plan, it’s managers direct, organize, or control business activities, there are always decisions and policies to resolve and a lot of these are ongoing . This is because decision making is a basic in every job that a manager in any business will do on almost a daily basis   The Autocratic Thinking style is a directive style that involves having a leader who takes complete control over a problem, decision or policy totally without discussing the problem with fellow employees or team members. This style may has its advantages and disadvantages.   One positive is that it enables the person to be able to make a quick decision, and in most cases that person is going to personally accountable for the outcome.   Such a style is effective in emergencies and when an absolute followership is needed, for instance, when fighting fire. Some disadvantages of autocratic style is the lack of concern by an employee’s who is not motivated, who choose not to carry out the orders of his or her employer because he or she do not want to shoulder that responsibility.   For example, the previous company I was working for my manager was an autocratic style decision maker. He was a very direct and quick decision maker who likes control over every decision that is made in the company. He likes to evaluates, generates, and identify what is the problem.   Once he identifies the problem, he turns to the employee’s as an information source for his or her opinion to decide what he or she thinks cause the problem, so that he can choose an alternative solution. Collaborative Thinking style     Collaborative decision making may prove to be an essential decision making tool in the health care setting and in other organizations. This type of decision making process would be very beneficial in a clinical setting for the mere fact that there are so many personalities involved.   Decisions are based on many factors and opinions. In order to make a final decision several pieces of information must be gathered. The patient’s feelings and ultimate health must be at the forefront of any decision making. The members have some input into the decision and have a sense of involvement. This is   particularly useful if there are potential negative consequences for the members. The leader has access to alternative perspectives and is better informed when making the decision. When the members are notified before the decision is implemented there are no surprises and the sense of involvement is often enhanced. The main disadvantage to the collective participative decision making style is that it can be a slow and time intensive process. If security is an issue, this style may be inappropriate because so many people are involved from an early stage Conclusion The evidence shows various ways that different thinking styles may clash with one another and on the other hand form a seamless bond that improves or destroys the dynamics of an organization. As mentioned the business world possesses different organizations and various thinking styles and personalities, which all have to unite and form as one cohesive unit in order to complete goals and missions.   This paper included four different thinking styles and the pros and cons of all are represented throughout this essay.   In spite of the many differences with the thinking styles discussed, learning and practicing critical thinking skills will without a doubt improve upon the dynamics of a organization.